Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

John Kerry and the Problem of Evil -- Why I Posted It

Last time I posted (which was a while ago -- sorry, I got busy), I posted a piece from the Wall Street Journal's Best of the Web page entiteld John Kerry and the Problem of Evil. I posted it without commenting as to why I was posting it on this Christian apologetics page. A couple of people took offense at what I was writing and thought that I was posting it to bash John Kerry. While I certainly don't think John Kerry would have made a good president for many reasons, I didn't post it to simply bash him. I had a point to make, and now that I have a few moments, allow me to clarify what I was thinking.

The use of the argument that there is no God based on the existence of evil is very similar to the way the argument is being used by the WSJ. The WSJ suggests that John Kerry is making a claim to be able to end the war in Israel based on a comment that if he were Commander in Chief, it wouldn't be happening. Taking this comment (and others like it), they attribute to him a desire to see all evil in the world end, the power to make it end, but the unwillingness to do so. On that basis, they assert that Kerry either lacks the desire to end evil, the power to end evil or his very existence. We all know that in reality Kerry lacks the power to end evil (despite his suggestions during the election that if he were President everything would be right with the world) which is why his claims can be seen as comical by the WSJ.

The argument against the existence of God from evil is used in much the same way. According to the standard argument from evil, God is certainly a loving God who has a great deal of power (more than John Kerry, even) and who has said through the prophets that he hates evil, and therefore God is either not all good, not all powerful or doesn't even exist. But, as with John Kerry, the argument assumes too much. God can still hate evil by allowing it to exist if there is a strong reason to do so.

The Bible is clear on several points. The Bible teaches that God loves humanity (even though we are undeserving of that love) and hates evil. Yet, humanity engages in evil acts. This puts God in a strange situation: if he decides to wipe out all evil, then he must wipe out all humanity. History shows that it doesn’t suffice to wipe out only the evil people because the children of good people often become evil themselves, so the evil will continue if humanity is not entirely wiped out. Yet, the story of Noah shows that God does not desire that all humanity be wiped out. God loves humanity despite our failings, and has as a higher priority than the destruction of evil the salvation of as much of humanity as possible.

Thus, the WSJ article is funny because it’s obvious that John Kerry lacks the power to wipe out evil and we all know it. But it is instructive in the way it assumes that John Kerry is making a claim that he doesn’t make based upon a stretching of the things he and John Edwards said during the last election. The problem of evil does the same thing in a different way: it assumes that because God does have the power and because He does hate evil, that destroying evil is the highest priority that God would hold and His failure or refusal to exercise that power to eradicate evil shows that he is either not good, not powerful or non-existent. However, those assumptions are ill-founded and unconvincing if the true state of the situation (as is Biblically supportable) is that God hates evil, desires it be destroyed, and has the power to destroy it but is waiting to destroy it because of a higher goal.

Reactions:

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Thanks BK, but I don’t think you have to justify your post just because a couple people get their feelings hurt. This is mainly an apologetics blog; however, it’s also an outlet for you to communicate whatever you want. As long as you throw some of those good apologetic blogs here and there, go ahead and post on politics, family, muscle cars, midgets, or whatever floats your boat :-).

Either way, I truly appreciate the content you and Layman have been giving here.

Thanks, BF, but I do think I had to at least explain why it was on an Christian apologetics blog which is a group blog. If this were my own personal blog, I'd agree with you, but it's not. There are upwards of 60 members in the CADRE and while I only speak for myself, the blog is for the express purpose of apologetics.

But definitely, thanks for the compliment. I equally enjoy ProTheism (just wish I had more time to spend reading all of the good stuff so many people are putting out).

I am not certain of all the details of Roman Catholic theology, but as I understand it they believe the Pope is infallible when speaking on matters for God, but they don't think he is without sin. So, yes, everyone would have to go, Pope included.

Second, I expect that you are more knowledgable about Christian teaching as it relates to your second post. Why are you playing ignorant? Is it that you don't understand the Christian position or you are just saying things to try to incite a reaction?

I just can't figure out the analogy. John Kerry is not all powerful. He may or may not have been able to prevent the current violence if he had been elected, but even if he could have, he would be doing it through normal means just as available to President Bush.

Kerry is a man without ultimate power, who wishes to have prevented the current hostilities but who may and probably would have failed to do so even if he were president.

God is a being with supposed ultimate power, who cannot fail in anything He supposedly attempts.

If Kerry fails at a task, we can assume it wasn't within his ability.

If God does not perform a task, we must assume that it is not His will.

Kerry's hubristic comment leads me to suspect that the Wall St. Journal thinks Kerry sees the presidency as conferring omnipotence. I highly doubt it. It seems like a cute and clever exaggeration made by a political commentator.

To take it as a theological argument is to take the cute analogy too far. Kerry has an "out" that negates the problem of evil being applied to him: he's not omnipotent.

I think that's the nature of the Wall St. Journal's snipe, it's political.

I was one of the piffed, BK, (if that's a word) as I'm sure my snotty comment showed. But then it was the first day of school and I was commenting, rushed, from my office. My tone could have been better. The first day of school does strange things to the human beings called teachers.

And yes, your clarification does clarify.

I was reacting, of course, to what seemed to be an offhand slam of my particular political party. Not that I thought Kerry was the best choice in the world, but I'm still a liberal Democrat. If it means anything, I agree with you: this is an apologetics blog; at least that's what I come here for. And good apologetics is needed. The skeptical web commnity is large, strong, and often bright.

Understood. While I tend to back Republicans because I tend to agree more with their stand on a couple of issues (if only they would carry out those stands when in office . . .), I am not into making this a bash the other political party blog. Nevertheless, since it is apparent that it may come through occasionally which party I back, then I guess I can only apologize in advance.

I am not saying it wasn't a political dig at Kerry the way it was originally posted. I think, however, it does have something to say about the argument against the existence of God due to the existence of evil. As you say, "If God does not perform a task, we must assume that it is not His will." That is exactly right, but probably not in the way you intended. What I am saying is that God could wipe out evil, but he doesn't do so for other reasons he finds to be more important.

P.S. I haven't forgotten that I need to respond to your take on the morality argument. I have just been very busy lately and what you wrote is pretty good and I am not going to post lightly on it. I want to give it some thought and respond clearly and concisely. I apologize for the delay, but I will get to it (eventually).

While I agree with what you're saying about the existence of evil being God's will, I also agree with Bruce: the analogy with Kerry's comment simply doesn't work. Taken at face value (which is how it is presented), Kerry's complaint was that he would have stopped or prevented an evil if he had had the power.

Whether the power is supposed to be considered inherent, or given, or whatever, the point is that Kerry _wasn't_ complaining that he would have stopped an evil _but_ he himself chose not to do it (for whatever hopefully good reason).

The analogy was broken from the outset, which is why Bruce was critting it. (And me, too, in my comment on it. {s})

Also, as annoying and trollish as Steven can be, what he was poinking at in his flame-baiting way was a real logical inconsistency in your presentation. i.e., you leaned so hard on "if God decides to wipe out all evil, then he must wipe out all humanity", that you left yourself no logical room for God's salvation of persons from evil. Obviously, if God succeeds in redeeming a person, thus wiping out the evil of the person, He must be doing so in a way that _doesn't_ involve simply wiping out the person.

You can't logically have it both ways. Either God can succeed in wiping out evil _without_ wiping out the person; or else He can't. If the latter, you've completely abandoned the doctrine of salvation. If the former, then you can't use that as an element in a theodicy and/or defence.

I agree with you from one angle, but disagree with you from another. The point wasn't the basis of why Kerry wouldn't stop the evil (and why God wouldn't stop the evil) but the assumption that his failure to do so shows that he either lacked the power, lacked the goodness or didn't exist. In both cases, there may be perfectly legitimate reasons for not exercising the power despite those three possibilities. In other words, I am saying that the problem of evil is a false trilemma, and I thought that the Kerry discussion illustrated that (still do). If you don't agree, well, that's fine. I see it pretty clearly. :)

{{The point wasn't the basis of why Kerry wouldn't stop the evil (and why God wouldn't stop the evil) but the assumption that [Kerry's] failure to do so shows that [Kerry] either lacked the power, lacked the goodness or didn't exist.}}

Um... But Kerry _does_ quite certainly lack the power, and (so far as I can tell) was explicitly complaining (and claiming) that he would have prevented it if he had had the power.

I grant, Kerry's example _could_ have been an illustration of false trilemma, if the lack-of-power option wasn't already patently obvious, both as a metaphysical truth and as a historical fact, attested to by Kerry himself as the central ground of his complaint.

For the analogy to work, we'd have to be in the same position regarding God, with complaints by Him to the effect that He would stop an evil if He had the power to do so except He doesn't (for whatever reason). Even then, though, it wouldn't be representative of a false trilemma. (Well, except in the trivially true sense that it's false as a trilemma because one of the trilemma "horns" is clearly settled to be true by the terms of the example. {g})

Put another way, there may be (I agree there _are_) perfectly legitimate reasons for God not exercising the power aside from those three possibilities. But there are _not_ perfectly legitimate reasons for John Kerry (per his explicit example) not exercising power to stop the Mid-East crisis aside from those three possibilities; because we know for a fact that one of those possibilities does obtain in his case. (As he himself was complaining: not pres, therefore no power to stop crisis, but he thinks he could and would have, if he _did_ have presidential power.)

More shortly again: if one of the trilemma possibilities is confirmed to be true, per the terms of the example, then the example is _not_ exemplifying possibilies _other than_ the trilemma options.

Not to confuse matters, but as a political argument and an apologetics argument it makes much more sense if George Bush is used instead of Kerry.

George Bush WAS president during the crisis. He did not stop or even intervene forcefully during it. In fact he stepped back waiting for events to play out, in the hope that things would play out better for Israel.

So to make the analogy, President Bush failed to act to stop the war earlier with the stated desire for a more positive outcome in the long term.

That's the more correct analogy from the point of view of the Wall St. Journal's opinion page, and the more correct analogy to apologetics PRESUMING that you accept that this President is somewhere near infallible, and that he did the right thing for the right reasons with the right outcome with regard to this conflict.

President Bush COULD have intervined in the conflict, but didn't.

Senator Kerry couldn't have interviened in this conflict, whether he wanted to or not.

In this way, the Senator is no different from you and me. There's no reason to use Kerry as an example, since all of us have things we would wish to be the case but lack the power to bring them about.

Good point. I'd thought of putting that in myself, but felt my comment was running too long as it was. {g}

We'd also have to presume, however, that Bush did in fact have the power to stop it even though he didn't use that power. (He had the power to do _something_, of course, which is more than Kerry does, but not necessarily more than Kerry would have had.)

Since I'm dubious that any President of the US could have had the power to actually prevent the crisis from happening, though, I would still be inclined to call a false analogy. (Though admittedly still a better one than Kerry's situation allows.)

Moral: when we're talking about situations involving characteristics unique to God, trying to illustrate by analogical comparison either has to be massively qualified (at risk of ruining the illustration), or else the comparison must be considered automatically void.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.